M 98, what was the twist rate of the rifle that shot that bullet? I agree that it looks like it turned around which may have actually closed the mushroom. More likely, it keyholed the hog and opened a little while tumbling. That bent-up petal is not indicative of a bullet that traveled straight and true.

I bet it was a 1-14 or 1-12 twist. Way too slow. A bullet that long really really needs 1-7 or at worst 1-9.

quote:

Originally posted by Collins:
I've been shooting a long time, engineering a long time, and hunting never. But (you saw that coming didn't ya) I can't see how you're saying Good or Bad in terms of black or white in this case. There seem to be several parameters which all could have various weights. Dead Animal should be a larger percentage of weather a hunting bullet failed or not. (Give it 50%), next retained weight, (20%) proper mushrooming (10%) 2 holes (10%) terminal stabilization or not tumbling IN the animal (10%)

Best performance: 100% of the bullet falls straight to the ground after expanding as the manufacturer advertised while drilling a straight hole through the now dead animal.
100% of all categories

Worst performance: bullet fragments bounce of the animal and it goes "WTF?"
0%

I'd say every bullet ever shot into an animal will be somewhere in between. I certainly wouldn't call the TSX in question a failure. I’d give it a 75% or so…
JMHO

collins -

VERY nice hypothesis.

First, very interesting perspectives of bullet
failure, and I like Collin's bullet rating
system, except...

Let's use my experience with Barnes XBT bullets.
Barnes 130 gr. .30 cal XBT bullets loaded into
.308 Win. exiting a Savage Striker 15" barrel at
a measured average MV of 2775 fps. Three
northern whitetails dispatched, with this bullet,
and caliber. Two were "Bang/Flop", and
one was "Bang/Stumble 30 yards". Two
were classic rib cage shots, at under 100
yards, and one was a quartering towards,
shoulder shot exiting behind the last rib,
on the far side. All three were dead deer,
for 50%, all three passed through for 10%,
retained weight ???, since they passed through,
proper mushrooming ???, since they passed
through, and terminal stabilization ???, since
they passed through...So were these 60%
effective bullets? Judging from the tissue,
organ, and bone damage they were 100%
effective bullets. According to my old deer hunter
uncle, that showed up when I was processing
one of these deer, it was about 200% effective,
since he stared at the hole behind the shoulder,
and commented, "Whatever made that hole
is TOO much gun for whitetails". Since I didn't
have to track it, I rate it as just about the correct
gun for whitetails. I personally have been
so impressed with Barnes X bullets, even on
soft tissue hits, that all of my hunting rifle
loads are under going transitions to TSX
loads from various soft point bullets. I think
shooting light for the caliber, does help
soft tissue hits. I know there is a ton of
energy transfer, and the rest is up to me to
put that energy transfer where it results in
a recovered animal.

Incidently, that was some shot on that running
pig

Squeeze

quote:

Originally posted by squeeze:
First, All three were dead deer,
for 50%, all three passed through for 10%,
retained weight ???, since they passed through,
proper mushrooming ???, since they passed
through, and terminal stabilization ???, since
they passed through...So were these 60%
effective bullets? Judging from the tissue,
organ, and bone damage they were 100%
effective bullets. Incidently, that was some shot on that running
pig
Squeeze

They were 100% effective! (Quickly dead animal) But in terms of performance they could have been anywhere between 60% and 100% you'd have to recover the bullet to be sure. From the sounds of it they "probably" mushroomed and were adaquately stabilized...

Your right about the pig shot tho'

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch:
here's the picture:


I must question a couple of the parameters and assumptions. Impact velocity would be about 2400 fps, or thereabouts, and the bullet DID expand, and it DID cause a large wound channel: it most CERTAINLY did NOT "pencil through". Could it have expanded more? Yes. Was it NECESSARY for good performance? From the description given, absolutely not.

Also, that is near normal for x-bullet deformation at that impact speed.

It is NORMAL for bullets to invert after impact. Particularly heavy bullets with marginal stabilization.

Finally, the conjecture that the bullet opened up only because it hit bone is just that: conjecture. This sort of thinking is based on people's experience with cup-bullets. Solid copper bullets act differently. Barnes bullets open up when hitting water or any other substance of similar hardness. The only relevant part of the story about the bone is that the TSX went through it, without going to pieces. JMO, Dutch.

That bullet did NOT create a large wound channel. If you think that the channel that bullet created was large.........you haven't seen a large wound channel. Very slightly expanded bullets DON'T make large wound channels.

Very poor bullet performance. Too many guys will defend a bullet because they paid throught the Frickin' nose for it............doesn't always make it good. In this case, the performance was very poor. Sure the hog died...........so what? If you shot it though the lungs with a FMJ it would have died too.......but that is not what we look for in a hunting bullet.

Nope, shitty performance, no two ways about it. To make things worse, this poor fellow paid through the nose for shitty performance.

Of course, this is only IMHO.

The only "shitty" aspect of the "performance" was in shooting a pig at 300 yards with a .22 caliber target bullet.

However, it is a target bullet that is heavy for its tiny caliber, and is monometal copper tough enough for big game if ...

Such a tiny bullet on deer and pigs ought to be limited to 100 yards to insure effectiveness.

On humans, combat .223 caliber bullets (though spitzer FMJ's) are meant to wound from afar or close, to tumble after impact at high velocity, not to kill cleanly, to burden the enemy with caring for their wounded. They are meant to be ineffective killers but easier to pack the lighter ammo for, and easier to shoot for the teenage riflemen using them mostly.

Silly thread!

M 98

I would suggest that those nosler 180 grainers were also failing if they did not fully penetrate a pig at 20 meters when launched from a 30-06,were they balistic tips (another problem bullet)?

I've shot alot of pigs & managed to get complete pass throughs even with a 243.

I've used barnes bullets for a number of years & had much less drama with them than I have had from balistic tips.

The problem is we expect every bullet we use to work perfectly no matter what the impact velocity is or the size & structure of the target & if we keep pushing bullets well beyond their limits we have got to expect failure to some degree or another.

Considering bullet performance is the most critical factor I think more thought should go into how we select & use bullets.

Bullets are not magic & once used beyond their design capability there is bound to be failures.

It would be nice if the bullet makers would give us more info to help us make a better choice like a recomended velocity range & the size of game ect but I doubt wether it will happen & we will still have to do alot of guess work.

Mauser96,
in my opinion, I completely disagree with you, and as my british boss would say ...BULLOCKS!!! then again, i think BT's are crewl and unusual...
About the only thing we agree with is that an FMJ would surely kill from a lung shot.. and not the best choice in the world


jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Mauser96,
in my opinion, I completely disagree with you, and as my british boss would say ...BULLOCKS!!! then again, i think BT's are crewl and unusual...
About the only thing we agree with is that an FMJ would surely kill from a lung shot.. and not the best choice in the world


jeffe

Nothin' to disagree about Jeffereosso.
That bullet, expanded as it is, did NOT make a huge wound channell. Physics prove that. Look at the bullet. Barely expanded. If that bullet was used to the manuf specs - then it failed. And to make things worse, the poor fellow paid through the nose for that shitty performance.

TUMBO
i was useing 180 gn partitons from my 06, at 2800 fps, i think i was not stressing the proj to much at that velocity, not only did the noslers not penetrate from rear angling shots but on brumbies when i hit bone .the rear core s were poping out...i ve got the recovered proj
daniel

Every product on the market has a failure at some point so what is the point?. The TSXs have performed perfectly for me. Do you stop buying everything on the market because somebody got a bad one?

quote:

Originally posted by Mauser96:
Nothin' to disagree about Jeffereosso.
That bullet, expanded as it is, did NOT make a huge wound channell. Physics prove that. Look at the bullet. Barely expanded. If that bullet was used to the manuf specs - then it failed. And to make things worse, the poor fellow paid through the nose for that shitty performance.

You are correct, physics proves this situation, but please read my take on this

wThe judgement on the TSX performance is based off an expectation that another bullet would have expanded more.

this partictular shot was 300 yards, at a running pig, with a TSX..

the bullet was RECOVERED --- this is the critical data point ..

a recovered bullet means one of three things... low velocity
largish animal
huge expansion and weight retention

well, we all agree the TSX didn't expand very much,but was recovered

this was a 90# animal (tiny)

I would present that the bullet hit way under "through penetration" velocity...

that velocity, if not even to drive a super high SD bullet that BARELY expanded (see pics and every agrees) through a 90# pig ...

I do not believe that the terminal velocity was enough to drive a FMJ through the same pig,

and since I have seen complete passthrough with 45LC at 1200fps.. and even assuming 25% more, that's 1500 FPS at impact (which SHOULD have gone through, so it was proably lower)...

even being generous and assuming 1500fps, thats UNDER required barnes published expansion window


bullet failure? No, load failure.. or user error (even assuming 300 yards at a running "football" was a good idea)

jeffe

I ,for one, appreciate the fact that we have all these new 'high tech' projectiles.

Seeing as all game animals have become immune to soft point,round nose bullets.

jeffeosso:

quote:

and since I have seen complete passthrough with 45LC at 1200fps.. and even assuming 25% more, that's 1500 FPS at impact (which SHOULD have gone through, so it was proably lower)...

Isn't it simpler to attribute the results to an under-stabilized bullet?

Jaywalker

I have read most of these replies and do not recall this being mentioned, but on page 40 of the December 2005 "American Rifleman" the Barnes people themselves have a photo of recovered bullets of the new MRX, both low and high velocity impact. The low velocity one really doesn't look much different than the "failed" bullet shown on this thread. So I guess they know their bullet's capabilities and are happy with them as the MRX looks about the same. Either seem to me to not be a wise choice for low velocity chamberings or long range shots for less than very high MV rifles.

Dead pig, bullet expanded, just not to the picture perfect magazine add.

Failure! I think not.

After shooting close to ten deer over the last two seasons with a 53gr TSX's out of my 22-250 @3850fps, ranges from 40-400 yards I think I can say they work.

I have yet to recover one, and I am anxiously awaiting the day that I do.

I like using this combo for my antlerless tags because they do the job and do not cause as much meat damage.

I can't speak for the .224" tsx bullets but I have witnessed several kills with the 7mm-140gr tsx,.308" 168gr tsx and the .308" 180gr tsx.The results in all cases were very good.Here is a picture of a 180gr tsx that I recovered from an elk this fall.



I can't imagine better bullet performance.

An interesting asside to this thread. A few years back I had a 10" 218 mashburn barrel made for my contender. I also came into a variety of 22 cal componet bullets, and in the process of fire forming a few cases in the garage, I got the idea that they would fire form better if instead of toilet paper filler, I used a 62 gr hornady hp, and shot it into a stack of scrap wood. The pile of scrap wood was 3 2X4's, and a pressure treated 4X4, which makes a total thickness of 8". I was greatly suprised to find the (as I recall) 5 gr's of red dot drove the bullet through every single piece of wood, and the bullet turned itself completely inside out upon striking the concrete floor. As I later recall when testing those loads at the range they keyholed at 50 yds and I believe they were doing about 1500 fps at the muzzle.

The whole reason for that long asside is to say that a 22 cal spitzer hollowpoint that doesn't expand can penetrate through a suprising amount of stuff, even if it hits at a relatively sedate velocity. I'd imagine 8" of wood would provide at least as much resistance as a 90# pig.

From the picture, the bullet did expand, although not alot, but certainly enough to upset tissue as reported in the original thread. What most seem to fail to grasp is that for an expanding bullet not to completely explode when hitting a target at 3500 fps, it has to be relatively tough. By making it tough, one gives up expansion at lower impact velocities.

I'd contend the TSX didn't fail, but rather worked exactly as designed. I'd also contend that if one wants to shoot big game with a 22 caliber TSX they should keep the impact velocity up.

If a bullet works as designed, it isn't a failure, if it doesn't work the way you want, then it still isn't a failure, it is your failure for using it in the wrong application.

Now, if you understand how a bullet is suppose to act at given impact velocities, ie work as designed, and it doesn't, then that is a failure.

M98

Maybe in Aussie land you would "pay through the nose for em" but not here. If the bullet did indeed tumble in the pig then there was a huge path of destruction. No, not text book expansion but even when the TSX failed it killed the pig at 300yds from a little 22CF that is indeed impressive.

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:
i wonder how a core-lokt out of a .30/30 would have done?

A 90 mpound pig "hauling serious butt" at 300 yards would most likely not even have been hit by a .30/30 bullet.......

quote:

By making it tough, one gives up expansion at lower impact velocities

This is what makes the Nosler Partition jJcket bullet so ingenious! The front part is soft enough to expand even at low velocities/long ranges, and the rear half is tough enough to continue to penetrate at magnum speeds/short ranges. Essentially, the best of both worlds. This is why I still use them, despite the advent of "better" premium bullets!

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla:
M98

Maybe in Aussie land you would "pay through the nose for em" but not here. If the bullet did indeed tumble in the pig then there was a huge path of destruction. No, not text book expansion but even when the TSX failed it killed the pig at 300yds from a little 22CF that is indeed impressive.

Correct! I have examined a lot of bullet wound channels (in game, NOT phonebooks or jello!!) and seen quite a few recovered bullets too over the past 50 years or so, and I still do not consider myself expert enough in such matters as to be able to look at a recovered bullet and make a pronouncement as to what kind of a wound channel the thing made, without seeing the deceased critter too!

As many above have asserted, the wound channel depends on more than just how the bullet expanded or failed to expand......

One, the pig died, the bullet worked. Two, long shot for a small bullet in a large animal. Three, hollow points work on hydraulic expansion. Shove water, blood, whatever liquid into the point and the noncompressible liquid forces the tip to open. On the other side of this, punching through bones will slow it down and keep it from expanding. Once it tumbled it didn't have the hydraulic force to continue expansion